[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10374-H10384]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DISAPPROVING CANCELLATIONS TRANSMITTED BY PRESIDENT OCTOBER 6, 1997

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill

[[Page H10375]]

(H.R. 2631) disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President 
on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2631

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     Congress disapproves of cancellations 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7, 
     97-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 97-12, 97-13, 97-14, 97-15, 97-16, 
     97-17, 97-18, 97-19, 97-20, 97-21, 97-22, 97-23, 97-24, 97-
     25, 97-26, 97-27, 97-28, 97-29, 97-30, 97-31, 97-32, 97-33, 
     97-34, 97-35, 97-36, 97-37, 97-38, 97-39, 97-40, and 97-41 as 
     transmitted by the President in a special message on October 
     6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105-45.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].


                             General Leave

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
resolution of disapproval of the President's line item veto of the 
fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill.
  I would first like to thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], and the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis] for their leadership on this resolution. They 
are the ones who initiated the resolution, and without them it would 
not be possible for us to have this debate and action today.
  Many of us have different reasons, Mr. Speaker, for supporting this 
resolution. First, some of us, myself included, are strong supporters 
of the line item veto. I continue to be even though we are asking for 
this disapproval resolution to be passed. This group may have the best 
reason of all to support this resolution of disapproval.
  The President must use this new power very carefully, fairly, and 
responsibly. Otherwise, the line item veto becomes an abusive and 
dangerous power in the hands of the President.

                              {time}  1415

  Second, those strongly opposed to giving this power to the President 
in the first place and have argued that it is unconstitutional, you 
should vote for this resolution on principle alone. Your reasoning? The 
President should not have the line-item veto power in the first place 
and therefore he should not use it in this instance.
  Third, some of us have had to explain to our service men and women 
back home why their needs have been found less important than those of 
others and why they will not be getting the help they need this year. 
If you have any military construction projects in your State, and most 
States do, you should vote for this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, regardless of what category each of our Members would 
fall into, they should share the responsibility to ensure that the 
President uses his new authority fairly, carefully, and responsibly. 
The line-item veto authority can only be effective if it is used 
properly to cut wasteful and unneeded spending. This resolution is 
being considered in this House today because the President used his 
line-item veto authority in this instance carelessly and casually and 
then admitted that he made several mistakes.
  Congressional Quarterly reported on October 31 the following: ``The 
White House issued a veto threat, even as it acknowledged that it had 
used erroneous data as the basis for striking 18 of the 38 projects 
from the law.''
  In the White House press briefing shortly after the veto, OMB 
Director Franklin Raines said these exact words: ``I believe that the 
great majority, if not the overwhelming majority, of these projects can 
make a contribution to our national defense.''
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is our committee did not pork up the 
appropriations bill, and because of that this administration is finding 
it harder and harder to defend its cancellations. My subcommittee 
produced a responsible and frugal bill. There is not a single project 
in the bill that was not completely scrubbed and carefully scrutinized 
by my committee, the authorizing committee and the Pentagon. Each and 
every project included was done with the full support and endorsement 
of the Defense Department. The facts are each of these projects meet a 
validated military requirement. Each of these projects is executable in 
this fiscal year, and this bill is within the amounts provided for 
defense under the budget agreement signed by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody should claim that this bill contains unnecessary 
spending or is laden with pork. In fact, the contrary is true. Let me 
remind my colleagues that the bill we produced this year was $610 
million less than last year's enacted level. This is a 7 percent cut. 
Out of an $11.2 billion budget level 2 years ago, the fiscal year 1998 
appropriations bill is $2 billion less. That reduction is over 20 
percent in 2 years. The fact is if every other spending bill in the 
Congress was cut proportionately, we would not only have a balanced 
budget right now but a surplus of several billion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, when the President finds wasteful and unnecessary 
spending, he has now the authority to cancel that spending, and he 
should use it. But when the President uses this power to cancel 
spending not because it is wasteful but for political or other reasons, 
Congress should exercise its authority to disapprove of his actions. 
Today this Congress has the opportunity to correct the mistakes the 
President has admitted making.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the subcommittee that authored the 
appropriations bill, I now ask my colleagues to support this resolution 
of disapproval not just to provide the much needed resources for our 
service men and women but to ensure that the line-item veto power is 
used fairly, carefully, and responsibly in the future. The entire 
Republican and Democratic leadership team supports this resolution of 
disapproval. I strongly urge every Member of this body to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, let me at this time also thank some of the very key 
people that have been so instrumental not only in the movement of this 
bill but also of helping us in this resolution of disapproval. The 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee, we have worked very closely with him; the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], all of 
them have helped me. But more than anyone else, of course, is the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member and the 
former chairman of this subcommittee. He has been absolutely remarkable 
in his efforts to put together a good bill and to also help us to get 
bipartisan support in this resolution of disapproval. The gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Ortiz], the ranking member of the authorizing 
committee, also was very important in helping to craft and work with us 
on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak about this particular bill. I 
was chairman of this subcommittee for quite a few years. In many 
instances we would pass this bill on a voice vote. We have prided 
ourselves in being a very bipartisan subcommittee. I would be remiss if 
I did not say that I think we have the finest staff on both sides, 
Democrats and Republicans, the finest staff anywhere in this House. 
They have done a remarkable job year after year after year to make sure 
that these projects are scrubbed, to make sure that there are no 
lightning rods in these bills. We have made a real effort to do the 
best that we could for our troops, our men and women in the service, 
and to help our Nation's defense by having people that would resign and 
reup and keep our military strong, and to keep our families intact 
where they would have a decent place to live and exist.
  I would say the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] made my 
speech. I had a nice speech here. I would be happy to send all the 
Members copies. But I would say this. I have the privilege of serving 
on two committees. I

[[Page H10376]]

serve on the Subcommittee on Military Construction that I was chairman 
of for a lot of years. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and 
I have been very good friends for many years. I would say that I do not 
know of a finer, more dedicated Member in this House than the gentleman 
from California.
  I also serve on the Subcommittee on National Security. I can equally 
say the same thing for the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] who has 
been instrumental in adding health issues into the defense budget and a 
remarkable person in his own right. If we had the camaraderie in all 
the House that we have on this Subcommittee on Military Construction, I 
think life would be a little more pleasant for all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should not have been vetoed. I did 
not support the line-item veto. When the line-item veto bill was up, I 
stood in this well and I predicted what would happen on the line-item 
veto. I stick by those predictions. This is just the first part of the 
terrible things that can happen under line-item veto. I think some of 
my colleagues that voted for line-item veto would have a tendency to 
rethink at this point in time. This is a good bill. There are no 
lightning rods in it, there is no Lawrence Welk, there are no bicycle 
paths. This is a bill that stresses the quality of life for our men and 
women in service and training facilities.
  The argument that was made that some of these projects were not ready 
to go, we have prided ourselves in making sure that any project that we 
fund would be ready to go in that fiscal year. For that reason, I 
strongly support the override of this bill and compliment the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], all the Members on the Democratic side, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and all the staff for putting 
this bill together. I would strongly urge a unanimous vote on 
overriding this veto.
  Let me make one other point. In talking to people, they have said, 
``Well, I voted for line-item veto. I feel a little bit hypocritical 
about voting to override one of the first line items that was passed 
here.'' When Members signed up to support line-item veto, they did not 
sign up to support every time that a President, be he Democrat or 
Republican that would veto, they signed up to give the President some 
discretion to scrub the bills and make sure that there was no pork and 
waste in them. I do not think it is a bit hypocritical for anyone that 
supported line-item veto to support the override of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that everybody vote with us on overriding this 
line-item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a certain sameness or similarities 
between what each of us that have worked so hard on these bills have to 
say, I think. I think that is because there has never probably in the 
history of the Congress been two appropriation/authorization committees 
that have worked closer together or have worked in a more bipartisan 
spirit than these committees have. I appreciate from the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard]) and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner] so much the ability for us to work together like we have. We 
had the same criteria. We worked hard on that criteria. We struggled to 
make sure that everything absolutely met that criteria. I think we were 
all absolutely dumbfounded when the President chose to veto these 
particular bills.
  Let me sum it up again. All of these projects would address validated 
requirements of the military services. We did not invent any of these 
projects. We did not come up out of our head and say, ``Oh, that would 
be nice to do.'' These are things we demanded that the military prove 
their need for before we put them in. They are based on information 
provided by the military departments when the legislation was being 
developed. All of the projects are executable in 1998--33 of the 38 
canceled projects, 85 percent of them, are actually in the President's 
5-year defense program. One in four were programmed by the 
administration for the fiscal year 2000 military construction program. 
The military construction appropriations and authorization bills were 
both within the limits established by the budget agreement. There is no 
wasteful or excessive spending here.
  The White House and the Department of Defense both admit mistakes 
were made in the exercise of the line-item veto on the military 
construction propositions bill. To keep faith with the men and women in 
uniform and to improve their working conditions, their training 
environments and to enhance unit readiness, I believe the House should 
override the President's vetoes in this case.
  The Line-Item Veto Act provides a process for reconsideration. As the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] said, innate in supporting 
the line-item veto, and I supported the line-item veto and I still 
support it, but innate in that process is the ability of this body to 
disagree with what the President's thoughts were by vetoing them. That 
is what I ask us to do today. Let us disagree with the President. The 
President and the White House have already admitted mistakes were made. 
I do not think he is out there struggling for Members to sustain this 
veto particularly. Let us band together and have a very strong vote to 
override these vetoes.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House in the last 2 years 
has offered more amendments to cut military spending than I have. I 
think that we spend an obscene amount on military spending. I think it 
ought to be cut back deeply. Last year I offered an amendment to this 
bill to cut a number of projects out which were not on the 
administration's 5-year plan. I had originally expected to oppose this 
resolution because I felt that justice might best be served by making 
the White House and the Congress live with the consequences of their 
action on the line-item veto. But I think the manner in which the White 
House has handled these line-item vetoes in recent weeks is an affront 
to responsible government and deserves the type of public repudiation 
that this resolution provides. It is true that Members of Congress 
sometimes add items to legislation that are inconsistent with the 
overall purposes of that legislation and items that serve purposes too 
narrow to warrant the use of public funds. The same I would say can be 
said of many of the proposals contained in each of the budgets of each 
of the six Presidents I have served under.
  The question which the line-item veto raises was whether or not wiser 
decisions about the use of public funds could be made if the executive 
were given significant additional powers with respect to Government 
spending. I believe the experience we have had with the Clinton White 
House this fall answers the question. The President's exercise of the 
line-item veto has been objectionable for the following reasons in my 
view.

                              {time}  1430

  First, staff incompetence. With respect to military construction, the 
first appropriation bill on which the line item was fully exercised, 
fully one-third of the projects vetoed failed to meet the criteria 
established by the White House in the first place.
  Second, executive arrogance. The criteria established by the White 
House displayed wanton disregard for the constitutional role of the 
Congress in making decisions about spending. They were not narrow-
purpose items, they were of limited public use. In fact, the 
overwhelming majority were contained in the administration's own 5-year 
construction plans. The purpose of the veto, therefore, was clearly a 
matter of insisting on administration priorities in spending over those 
of the Congress. The White House may want the Government to work that 
way, but the Founding Fathers did not.
  Third, political dealmaking. The White House has made it very clear 
from the outset that its use of the line-item veto is a matter of 
political discretion rather than objective policy. The Defense 
appropriation bill which contained nearly half of all discretionary 
spending and, in my view, more

[[Page H10377]]

than half of the items that might have demanded the most scrutiny in an 
objective application of the line-item veto, that bill was the subject 
of the first administration offer with regard to the line-item veto. On 
that bill conferees were told by the White House that they would exempt 
the defense appropriation bill from line-item vetoes altogether if the 
Congress added more money to fund the very questionable Dual Use 
Program which gives Government research grants to private for-profit 
corporations.
  Fourth is the blatant disregard for eliminating the most wasteful 
items. While the White House has at times been willing to exercise the 
line-item veto on items where a clear public purpose was beyond 
dispute, they willfully neglected to use the veto in numerous instances 
where lack of a clear public purpose was beyond dispute.
  What we clearly have here is an effort on the part of the White House 
to leverage greater political power to the executive branch carried on 
under the guise of imposing fiscal restraint. But what the executive 
branch wants under this administration is no different than we have 
seen under previous administrations. They not only want more power, but 
they also very often want more money. And line item vetoes are being 
used to leverage in some cases more spending and to give the executive 
branch more leverage on nonspending items as well. I believe that is 
illegitimate.
  The President is the most powerful office in the world, and as 
Americans we should be proud of that, but the President should not be 
too powerful. We elect him to be a President, not a king. In my 
lifetime the greatest abuse of powers of government have come from the 
executive branch. If the Congress does not maintain its constitutional 
responsibility to be a coequal branch of Government, we risk having a 
Government which increasingly abuses its own citizenry and in which 
decisions about policy and resources are dominated by unelected staff 
elites or only marginally subject to popular will.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the statement that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin just made.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the passage of H.R. 
2631, the military construction line-item veto disapproval bill. 
Passage of this legislation is necessary to correct the mistakes that 
were made during the President's vetoes of 38 projects included in the 
bill which passed the House by a wide margin in July and in September.
  I thank the leadership for allowing this bill to come to the floor 
for passage, and I am especially appreciative of the chairman, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member, for their work in 
shepherding this legislation on the floor.
  One of my colleagues from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has titled this bill 
the military construction line-item integrity bill as this legislation 
restores integrity to the line item-veto process by ensuring the 
decisions are made on the basis of fact and not mistakes. The Office of 
Management and Budget has acknowledged that mistakes were made which 
led to the President's line-item vetoes, and passage of the legislation 
would allow those mistakes to be corrected.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support, and just yesterday the 
National Guard Association of the United States endorsed this bill. So 
I ask all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to support 
the legislation to ensure that our laws are based on factual 
information, not mistakes and erroneous information.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion of 
disapproval and commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] and others for their 
work
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today I to express my support for H.R. 2631, the 
military construction veto disapproval. I have the privilege of 
representing Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene. TX. One of the 38 
projects stricken from the military construction projects was in my 
district so I have a very personal interest in this legislation, but I 
believe that the President made the decision to strike many of projects 
in the bill based on poor advice and inaccurate information.
  One of the reasons the President gave for vetoing these projects was 
that they did not meet a so-called ``quality of life'' requirement. I 
don't know what the President's definition of quality of life is, but I 
do know this: these 38 projects which were eliminated included 
facilities to provide a safe working place for the men and women we 
entrust with the defense of our Nation.
  In the case of the squadron operations facility to be built at Dyess 
Air Force Base, there are currently no existing facilities to house the 
13th Bomb Squadron. Without this facility, the men and women of the 
13th Bomb Squadron will be denied the tools they need to do their jobs.
  How does this add to their quality of life or their ability to 
discharge their duties? Quality of life involves a great deal more than 
housing and child care facilities and gymnasiums, although those are 
very important. I cannot imagine how the quality of work life could be 
much worse than importing 500 to 1,000 men and women to do a job 
without any facilities in which to house that work.
  The projects line-item vetoed by the President were included in the 
military construction bill because they are essential to the mission of 
our military. Most of these projects were included in the 5-year plans 
of the military services so that the money for these projects will be 
spent eventually. These projects were considered by four different 
congressional committees with expertise in the area of national 
security and were reviewed by the Pentagon. The House and the Senate 
voted by overwhelming majorities to approve the Military Construction 
Appropriation Act.
  Yest the President and his staff acting in haste crafted a new 
criteria for military construction projects--quality of life. While I 
do not oppose the use of quality of life as a consideration for 
determining the merit of a project, it should not be the only criteria, 
and it should be clearly defined and fairly applied. In the case of the 
13th Bomb Squadron Operations Facility and many of the other projects 
canceled by the President, it was not. The President incorrectly 
substituted his judgment for that of the Congress and the Pentagon. I 
urge my colleagues to support our men and women in uniform by voting to 
override the President's line-item veto to restore these projects.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Ortiz], who has done yeoman work on this bill and also on 
the authorization bill.
  (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 2631, 
the Military Construction Line Item Veto Integrity Act before this 
House today. As my colleagues know, we have done so much work these 
last few months. We have had some very interesting hearings trying to 
address the needs that we address when we had those hearings and 
included in the bills and in some of these items that were vetoed.
  Now, the administration has admitted that they made some mistakes 
when they line item vetoed some of these projects. This is why today I 
strongly request my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  As my colleagues know, during these hearings that we had in reference 
to the military construction appropriations bills and the authorization 
bill, we traveled, and we saw the need. I wonder if my colleagues know 
that some of our pilots are getting out of the military after they 
serve 5, 6 years, and after we pay a million dollars to train our 
pilots they get out, and do my colleagues know why? It is because we 
have housing problems that now we are beginning to address in this bill 
today.
  They tell me, as my colleagues know, we train, and then we are 
deployed two, three different times a year, and at the same time when 
we are fighting to keep peace in these countries where we are assigned, 
we have to worry about our families. Why? Because the

[[Page H10378]]

plumbing does not work, because the electricity does not work, and then 
we expect our service people to stay when they have to serve under 
these conditions. They get better job offers in the outside.
  But let us not forget that included in this bill also, there is a pay 
raise for service men and women who serve, as my colleagues know, in 
the military.
  Again, I want Members to also remember that this has to lead back on 
pension. We will one of these days regret that because we did not do 
what the servicemen, people, needs were never addressed, that they are 
going to be getting out of the military, and this is going to cost more 
money.
  This is why I urge my colleagues to vote to override this bill today. 
It is a good bill, it is good for America.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  (Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to 
commend the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Hefner], and all the others who have worked on this 
effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply say that I rise in strong support of this 
resolution to disapprove the President's line-item veto of the fiscal 
year 1998 military construction appropriations bill.
  I rise in strong support of the resolution to disapprove the 
President's line-item veto of the fiscal year 1998 military 
construction appropriations bill.
  Congressman Skeen and I introduced resolutions disapproving the line-
item veto of these 38 military construction projects. One of those 
projects--the construction of two vehicle maintenance shops totaling 
$9.9 million--was to be built at Fort Campbell, KY, located in my 
congressional district.
  But whether or not you have a project eliminated by this veto should 
not be your only concern.
  What should concern you is the process.
  Under the provisions of the Line Item Veto Act, the disapproval 
resolution is the only means we have to register our objection or 
dissatisfaction with the programs or projects targeted for elimination 
or the manner in which they were selected. I am very pleased that 
Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Hefner support us in this effort.
  Depending on which report you read, as many as 18 projects proposed 
for elimination in this line-item veto proposal should never have been 
included on the list, including the vehicle maintenance shops at Fort 
Campbell.
  As a matter of fact, in testimony before the House National Security 
Committee on October 22, 1997, Maj. Gen. Clair F. Gill, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Budget, testified that the Fort 
Campbell project is 90-percent design complete, not zero percent as had 
been reported to the President. Since the President used the design 
status to determine which projects should be eliminated, he acted based 
on erroneous information. The bottom line is a mistake was made, and 
the vehicle maintenance shops at Fort Campbell should not have been 
included in the list of vetoed projects.
  I voted to give the President line-item veto authority, and I still 
believe it is an appropriate means to further reduce unnecessary 
spending.
  But the decisions on which projects or programs should be eliminated 
should be based on the criteria defined in the line-veto message. That 
did not happen in this case.
  Two units at Fort Campbell are scheduled to receive the new vehicle 
maintenance shops. The 235 soldiers assigned to those units currently 
work in facilities constructed over 50 years ago that were built to 
last for only five years. They are too small and improperly designed 
for efficient and safe maintenance activities. They have old and faulty 
electrical wiring which caused a fire in October 1991, destroying one 
building; they have inoperable and unserviceable vehicle exhaust 
systems; and they have inadequate lighting and are combustible. The 
current buildings contain asbestos and lead-based paint and they have 
no oil/water separators. Any way you look at it, the current 
maintenance facilities are deficient from an environmental, safety, and 
operational standpoint.
  The soldiers who work in these buildings are responsible for 
repairing and maintaining 400 pieces of equipment each month. The work 
they perform is critical in terms of maintaining a premier fighting 
force like the 101st Airborne Division which is expected to fully 
deploy to any location throughout the world in only 76 hours.
  Please join Congressman Skeen and me in support of the disapproval 
resolution. The Senate has already voted 69 to 30 to reject this veto, 
and the House must take similar action. We need to protect the line-
item veto process, and we need to restore funds to projects which met 
the President's criteria and did not belong on any veto list.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation and suggest to 
my colleagues that this issue is not solely about 38 projects, as 
meritorious as those projects may be. It is about the proper balance 
between the Congress of the United States and the Executive.
  I did not support the line-item veto. I supported the enhanced 
rescission alternative of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], 
which allowed the President to take out projects that the President 
thought were either fraud or wasteful or untimely or against the policy 
of the administration.
  In this instance the administration acted far too broadly and far 
beyond those constraints. This legislation, therefore, in my opinion, 
seeks to address balancing the responsibilities of this Congress, which 
under article I of the Constitution of the United States is to set the 
policies for this Nation and the executive's authority to carry out, 
but also to ensure that those policies are perceived by the 
administration as not to be wasteful or against policy. In my opinion, 
this veto went so broadly as to substitute the judgment of the 
administration for that of the Legislature, and that is not appropriate 
under the Constitution of the United States.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues not just because these 38 projects 
themselves have merit, but more importantly so that the proper balance 
between the executive and legislative branches of Government is focused 
upon by both the administration and by the Congress, and I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] for his 
leadership and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for his 
leadership in bringing this matter before the Congress in a context 
which does not need to be critical of the administration, but simply to 
say as we try out this new procedure, and it is brand new, we need to 
make sure that we do so in a context that is judicious and proper.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this Line Item 
Veto Cancellation Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding to me 
and I rise to express my support for H.R. 2631, the Line Item Veto 
Cancellation Act.
  As a long-time supporter of the line-item veto, I was particularly 
disappointed to see the President make a misinformed decision in 
canceling funding for 38 military construction projects, including 2 in 
my home State of Idaho. Based on faulty and outdated information 
provided by the Department of Defense, President Clinton eliminated 
needed funds for a B-1B bomber avionics facility for low-altitude 
navigation and an F-15C squadron building for planning and briefing 
combat crews at Mountain Home Air Force Base.
  Both of these projects were among the Air Force's top priorities and 
were a part of the President's 1999 and 2000 Pentagon budgets. The 
366th Composite Wing at Mountain Home Air Force Base represents one of 
our Nation's premier rapid-deployment forces in times of an emergency. 
Even Defense Secretary Cohen has reflected on the critical role of the 
366th Wing in our national security structure and acknowledged that 
``it must maintain peak readiness to respond rapidly and effectively to 
diverse situations and conflicts.'' For service at home and in the 
Middle East, Central America, and Europe, the men and women of Mountain 
Home Air Force Base have answered the call of their country; it is only 
right and proper that the Commander-in-Chief recognize this important 
commitment.
  Providing the President with line-item veto authority was an 
important goal of the last Congress, and I was pleased to assist in 
that effort. However, this power is significant and must be practiced 
with great care and attention. It is my hope that the President 
understands this and will only exercise the veto in appropriate cases.
  At this time, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Packard, Representative Skeen, Representative Hefley, and the

[[Page H10379]]

House leadership on both sides of the aisle for considering this 
measure today to overturn the President's vetoes. The Senate has 
already voted overwhelmingly to overturn the President's actions, so I 
hope that we can also send a strong message to the White House this 
afternoon by passing this measure with a veto-proof majority.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I voted for the 
line-item veto in 1995, and I remain a strong supporter of it when it 
is used properly. Unfortunately that is not the case here.
  Now we have two problems. Problem one, the President vetoed 
worthwhile projects, not the kind of wasteful pork-barrel spending that 
we intended to eliminate with the line-item veto; and problem two, the 
administration now admits it vetoed dozens of projects by mistake. Now 
they say they want to work with Congress to restore the funding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to correct these mistakes, and 
that is through this override process. When the President vetoes 
worthwhile projects by mistake, we have an obligation and a 
responsibility to correct those mistakes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  I voted for the line-item veto in 1995, and remain a strong supporter 
of it when it is used properly. Unfortunately, that is not the case 
here.
  We have two problems. First, the day after the President used the 
line-item veto, his budget director said this about the vetoed 
projects:
  ``The great majority, if not the overwhelming majority, of these 
projects can make a contribution to our national defense.''
  Problem 1. He vetoed worthwhile projects, not the kind of wasteful, 
pork-barrel spending we intended to eliminate with the line-item veto.
  Problem 2. The Administration now admits it vetoed dozens of projects 
by mistake. They say they want to work with Congress to restore 
funding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to correct these mistakes and that 
is through this override process.
  When the President vetoes worthwhile projects by mistakes, we have an 
obligation and a responsibility to correct those mistakes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes].
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of this 
bill.
  I rise today in support of this bill to restore the military 
construction projects which were vetoed from the military construction 
appropriations bill.
  Although I was not a Member of Congress when the line-item veto 
authority was passed and I do not necessarily support the line-item 
veto which I believe unfairly shifts the balance of power in this 
government, I understand that the purpose of the line-item veto is, 
basically, to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending--pork.
  The projects included in the military construction bill were not 
pork. As a Member of the House National Security Committee's 
Subcommittee on Military Facilities and Installations, I know how well 
each of the projects was vetted. All projects had to meet a need of the 
military and construction had to begin before the end of the next 
fiscal year. Even the Pentagon knows how important these projects are 
because most were included in its outyear budget plans.
  When the President used his line-item veto on the military 
construction bill, his criteria included:
  1. That the project could not make an immediate contribution to 
quality of life, or
  2. That the project could not begin in fiscal year 1998.
  First, in regards to the ability to begin construction in fiscal year 
1998, both the military construction appropriations and authorizing 
subcommittees reviewed all the projects closely and verified with the 
military services that construction on each project could begin next 
year. The administration also has now admitted projects were vetoed 
based on incorrect information.
  Second, many members of the House National Security Committee, 
including myself, find odd that the criteria did not include safety of 
our men and women in uniform and our civilian personnel. Many of the 
projects vetoed were, in fact, included in the original military 
construction bill for safety reasons.
  For example, Congress has included an ammunition supply area to be 
located on McGregor Range at Fort Bliss. The soldiers of Fort Bliss 
fire live ordnance on McGregor Range which is about 20 miles from the 
main post. Some of the live ordnance is now stored on the range, 
however, much is still stored on the main post and must be transported 
to the range for use by the troops. On post, the ammunition is stored 
in buildings which do not comply with regulations designed to protect 
human safety and the environment. To deliver the ammunition to the 
range, soldiers transport the ordnance over public highways through low 
income and minority areas of El Paso.
  Another project included in the bill for safety reasons is a project 
to renovate launch complex facilities on White Sands Missile Range. Our 
soldiers and civilians, currently working in this launch complex, are 
testing, among other munitions, antiballistic missiles to protect our 
troops in the field and the people of this nation. The 200 men and 
women who perform these tests, however, are working in unsafe and 
generally deplorable conditions. They face daily hazards relating to 
the absence of fire suppression systems and are potentially exposed to 
the dangerous hanta virus because of rat infestation under the 
buildings. without the renovations to the launch complex, their health 
and safety are at risk and activities relating to many of this nation's 
future offensive and defensive weapon systems will be jeopardized.
  I urge you to vote yes on this bill to help protect the lives and 
health of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilian 
personnel.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, as an appropriator and opponent of the Line-
Item Veto Act, my comments will be somewhat counterintuitive.
  You bet there is a mistake that needs to be corrected here. It was 
our mistake in passing the Line-Item Veto Act.
  You bet we should be concerned for the prerogatives of the 
legislative branch; we gave them away.
  Until we suffer the consequences of our profoundly foolish act in 
passing the line-item veto bill to begin with, it will be a continuing 
invitation for just the kind of abuse of executive power that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and others have pointed to.
  We did this to ourselves. The only way we are going to come to our 
senses about our mistake is to have to suffer the consequences of that 
mistake.
  We should vote no on this bill to force ourselves to live with what 
we did until we realize that we have it in our power to restore our 
constitutional rights. We gave them away. We cannot blame the President 
for taking advantage of that mistake.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, first let me strongly commend the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Hefley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz], the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and everyone else for bringing this legislation to 
the floor.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is both a pro-defense and a pro-line 
item veto vote here today. The previous speaker is a good friend, a 
former Marine, but he is also the most outspoken opponent of the line-
item veto, and I think he protests too much.
  As a chief proponent of the line-item veto in this House, I am proud 
to say as chairman of one of the committees charged with the oversight 
of the line-item veto bill, I assure Members that such an action would 
be fully consistent with the intent of the line-item veto.
  The line-item veto was written to give any President, regardless of 
party, the authority to highlight, in his opinion, questionable 
spending. Likewise, the law protects Congress' ability to defend its 
spending decisions and priorities by providing for this expedited 
procedure we have before us today.
  Moving a bill which utilizes these procedures is in no way 
undermining the intent nor taints our strong support of the line-item 
veto.
  Let me just tell Members something: If this does not pass today, we 
lower the level of spending by almost $300 million, almost half a 
billion dollars. That lowers all the defense spending. We fight hard to 
maintain that level of spending.

[[Page H10380]]

  I want everybody to come over here, those who supported the line-item 
veto, like I did, and I want you to vote to override the President. 
That is our prerogative as Members of this House.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Pickett].
  (Mr. PICKETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2631, and I would urge 
everyone who supports our military to likewise support this 
legislation.
  When this legislation originally passed, over 400 people in this body 
voted in favor of it, and I ask all 400 of them to vote the same way 
today. The reference is made that these projects are somehow wasteful 
and are pork-barrel kind of projects simply because they were not 
included in the President's budget.
  Mr. Speaker, each year I visit each of the military bases in my 
district and talk personally with the commanding officers and ask them 
what their priorities are and why their No. 1 priority is in fact their 
No. 1 priority.
  In the case of my project that is in this bill, it is because it is a 
matter of safety, safety for our military people. This item is fully 
justified by all of the criteria that are established for military 
construction projects. It has met all these requirements, and I would 
say that the President made a grave mistake in striking this provision.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler.
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill of 
disapproval.
  In 1995, the future years Defense plan showed that a chemical and 
biological testing facility was planned to be built at the Crane Naval 
Surface Warfare Center in fiscal year 1998--which is the Navy's 
designated agent for servicing and upgrading the chemical and 
biological weapon detection equipment deployed with the fleet.
  Since Crane is in the district I represent, I spoke to the Navy about 
this construction.
  I learned that the workload in this area was increasing dramatically 
and that the current facility would be hard put to handle the increase.
  In 1996, this program slipped to fiscal year 1999.
  This spring, I noticed that this project had slipped in the future 
years Defense plan to fiscal year 2000.
  I found this disturbing in light of the hearings our committee was 
having.
  For instance, on March 19, 1997, the Commander in Chief for the U.S. 
Central Command, General Peay, testified before the National Security 
Committee that, quote ``The situation has worsened during the past 
twelve months, with Iraq, Iran and others in the Middle East 
aggressively . . . advancing their chemical and biological research and 
development plans.''
  The Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan identified the 
capability for standoff detection of chemical weapons as, quote ``our 
single and most pressing need . . . critical to protecting our fielded 
forces.''
  The Chemical and Biological Testing facility was planned, necessary, 
and executionable.
  The Congress was right to advance this project for our sailors.
  The President made an error in vetoing it.
  We should do the right thing again.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of the Committee on National 
Security.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2631, which restores 
funding for the 38 military construction projects canceled by the 
President last month.
  By any definition, the projects canceled by the administration are 
not pork and they are not wasteful. The Committee on National Security 
recently conducted a hearing on the administration's proposed 
cancellations, and the record is clear.
  First, each of the proposed cancellations meets a validated military 
requirement. Second, each of the 38 projects is executable in this 
fiscal year. Third, nearly all these projects, 85 percent, are in the 
administration's own defense program. Fourth, the $287 million 
associated with these projects is well within the limits established by 
the budget agreement.
  In addition, the administration readily admits that mistakes were 
made in the President's extensive exercise of the line-item veto on the 
military construction appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for the line-item veto. However, the veto power 
was given as a tool to be used to prevent unnecessary spending. Even 
the President does not contend that these projects were unnecessary.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat like the skunk at the garden 
party. I rise to support the line-item veto.
  This body in 1996 talked long and hard about how we were going to 
share the sacrifice across the country to make the tough decisions to 
balance the budget. Indeed, there is light at the end of the tunnel 
now, and that is very encouraging. But the fact of the matter is, we 
cannot expect to reach the end of that tunnel, nor can we expect to 
maintain our resolve to balance the budget, unless the sacrifice is 
truly shared.
  We have not yet developed in this House or in Congress clear rules 
that avoid situations where one part of the country feels that another 
part of the country is walking away with special projects or special 
opportunities. There have been attempts to do this, but, continuously, 
whether it be by report language or earmarks in appropriations bills or 
other bills, the principle is violated.
  I have worked with Senator McCain and others to try to raise the 
standards in this respect. I know there are many others in this body 
that share that feeling. Otherwise, the line-item veto would not have 
passed by such an overwhelming majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is incumbent upon us to work with the 
White House to try to establish clear standards for, first, the use of 
the line-item veto, and, second, for our appropriations process, so 
that in the months ahead we do not see the line-item veto being 
exercised.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed almost to yield only 30 
seconds to my next four speakers, the first of which is the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this disapproval 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Packard, for his very hard work, but most especially for his 
using the line-item process properly.
  The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] got up and said we are here 
to condone the President's mistakes. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. We are here to correct the President's mistake with this.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. As one of the House's 
five majority conferees who secured final passage of the line-item 
veto, I am pleased to see the process we devised working. When the 
President first made use of his new line-item veto authority, naysayers 
and critics rushed to judgment and declared a falling sky. Those of us 
who support the line-item veto have repeatedly attempted to remind our 
colleagues that we did not go forward blindly in approving the line-
item veto--that we carefully and painstakingly considered mechanisms to 
ensure that Congress would remain an integral part of the process. 
Today's consideration of a disapproval resolution on the President's 
cancellations from the fiscal year 1998 military construction spending 
bill underscores that fact. In this specific case, as all of us now 
know, the President has admitted making mistakes in applying the line-
item veto to the military construction bill. By passing this 
disapproval resolution, we are giving the President a chance to correct 
those mistakes. We all know that there are lower priority and wasteful 
projects in spending bills that come out of the Congress. That's why we 
passed the line-item veto. But in this case, most of what the President 
chose to cancel through the line-item veto were projects that he 
himself has asked for. I am very concerned that we not continue to make 
funding for our troops

[[Page H10381]]

the easy target for spending cuts. National defense funding has already 
taken a disproportionate share of major hits under this President. For 
more than one reason the MilCon cancellations were a mistake; here's 
our chance to right that wrong.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say, I am a member of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction. I even had the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Colorado, to go down to look at this project.
  Let me just quickly tell you what was vetoed: A project that costs 
$19.9 million in a figure for 1961; it would pay for itself, Navy 
figures, 2 years, 1 month, and deliver back to the taxpayers $169 
million in savings in 25 years. The computer printout, everything was 
there. It was vetoed. It should not have been vetoed. There were never 
questions asked by the Department of Defense. I would ask that we pass 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, in responding to the President's decision to veto 
certain projects added to the fiscal year 1998 military construction 
appropriations bill--like Paul Harvey, I cannot pass up an opportunity 
to tell you ``the rest of the story.''
  The waterfront improvements project at Norfolk Naval Shipyard is not 
a pork barrel project.
  It's not part of some fly-by-night scheme to add wasteful, 
unnecessary spending to the benefit of only me or my district.
  It was done in full light of day by authorizers and appropriators, 
first in the House and then in conference agreement with the Senate.
  This project has been in the works since 1995. It is needed to make 
Norfolk Naval Shipyard more effective, efficient, and competitive.
  The Project replaces and refurbishes antiquated wharf and berthing 
areas.
  it demolishes two old buildings, along with shipways 1 and 2.
  This area would then be used to install modern ship support systems, 
electric distribution systems, transformers, communications upgrades, 
steam and water distribution systems, sanitary sewer facilities, 
compressed air distribution systems, salt water fire protection 
facilities, railroads, and crane rails.
  In short, these are the utilities and equipment necessary to run a 
modern industrial facility.
  And that is a quality of life issue for civilian workers. And you 
know what? Sailors work there too.
  So much for when the White House said ``the project would not improve 
quality of life for military service members and their families.''
  The White House also said that, ``architectural and engineering 
design of this project has not started.''
  Again, not true. Anyone who bothered to check would have known the 
project had reached 35 percent design back in April of 1996.
  Since there are no new buildings, the design issues are not all that 
complicated.
  In fact, the design issues focused primarily on plans for demolition 
and asbestos removal.
  The last time I checked, that was a very serious quality of life 
issue for sailors and civilian employees.
  But I don't think anybody from OMB ever bothered to check.
  Frankly, I think OMB wanted to shoehorn all 38 projects into their 
arbitrary criteria, come hell or high water, my mind's made up, don't 
confuse me with the facts.
  I would like to know who misled the President about this, though.
  Still, I have to confess, on one thing they were right: This project 
was not in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
  It is in the Navy's 5-year plan for 2001. But if the project will be 
funded in a few years anyway, what's the big deal?
  The big deal is money.
  The longer we delay the project, the longer this part of the yard 
will be unable to play an effective part in the yard's ship repair 
mission.
  The longer we delay, the longer the yard must wait to consolidate 
functions in the highly classified controlled industrial area.
  The longer the yard maintains obsolete facilities, the greater their 
O&M and overhead costs.
  The Navy's economic analysis shows return on investment for this 
project takes place in 2 years.
  Let me say it again: This project pays for itself in 2 years.
  Once you do this project, it saves approximately $10 million per year 
in the first 2 years.
  Once you sort through all the numbers, over the standard 25-year 
cycle, this project saves over $169 million. I repeat: $169 million.
  My question to the White House is: Why delay it 4 years?
  I have never heard of anything more penny-wise and pound-foolish.
  The sooner we do it, the sooner we can put the money we save to a far 
better use; the sooner we can give sailors and civilian employees a 
safer, more productive working environment.
  And the sooner we can refocus attention on the partnership that 
Congress and the President should have when it comes to protecting our 
national security.
  I ask the House to override this veto.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Hill].
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I think nothing is more important today than 
working to support the morale of our men and women in uniform. The 
President vetoed a renovation project at Malmstrom Air Force Base for a 
dining hall; Mr. Speaker, a dining hall that, without repairs, will not 
meet the local civilian health standards.
  The President's veto said that the health and safety of these men and 
women does not matter. Today we can say that it does matter and that we 
care, and we can do that by supporting this resolution.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune.]
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, support the line-item veto, but I 
think what is instructive about all this is, when the White House uses 
it inappropriately, as it has in this case by its own admission, that 
it is up to us to appropriately use our powers to correct the 
deficiencies in their process. That is what we are doing here today. It 
will restore an important project, one that is very valid and 
legitimate at Camp Rapid in South Dakota.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana, [Mr. Buyer.]
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman for bringing up 
this bill. These are great bipartisan projects.
  In particular, I want to thank the chairman. The gentleman was just 
down in Mayport Naval Air Station in Florida with me, and we actually 
went and saw one of the items that the President line item vetoed.
  I wanted to share with Members, we have two Aegis cruisers down 
there. They had to shut them off, shut off the electronics, and they 
took tugboats and shoved these multimillion-dollar ships into the mud 
itself.
  These are the types of projects the President line item vetoed, but 
he said if it is for social spending in the military, that is OK.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Construction, many years ago, before the disaster struck a couple of 
years ago, I visited from California to Montana and States all over 
this Nation. I have been into residences where these people are living 
on the bases, our men and women. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard] and I went to Fort Bragg, NC, and saw the conditions that the 
people were living in there.
  We have young men and women that are called upon to operate the most 
sophisticated weapons on the face of the Earth, and some of them are 
living in World War II facilities.
  Now, it is not every time that you put something in military 
construction that relates directly to quality of life, but if you have 
got a training center that was vetoed in this bill that is critical to 
training our troops that is in dangerous condition, just the facility, 
then that is something that adds to retention and quality of life for 
our men and women in the service.
  This is not the place to debate the line item veto, but I stood in 
the well here and predicted that this sort of thing was going to 
happen, and it is going to get worse. It makes no difference whether it 
is a Republican President or Democrat President; when you start having 
the line item veto show up in political areas and being used as a 
political weapon, this is a disaster for the American people.

[[Page H10382]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member to send a message early on, to 
send a message and vote unanimously in support of this bill.
  I want to congratulate and thank all the Members and the staff 
people. I would strongly urge everyone to vote in support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank all of those who have 
participated, not only in this debate, but in helping to make this a 
successful bill and successful effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, to close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we gave the President the line-item veto 
to help him help us trim the budget and cut down the cost of Government 
and eliminate wasteful and unnecessary programs. That was a good idea.
  We did not expect that he would come back on one of the first bills 
in the appropriations cycle and use sloppy and inadequate staff work 
and cut meaningful, worthwhile projects. But that is exactly what he 
did.
  I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Packard], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for their 
foresight and vision in making sure that we enforce this system.
  The President has a significant new power. He should use it wisely. 
He used it unwisely in this instance. Witness the Utah project, which 
was a good system to provide for the people that were training for the 
Olympics, or all the other projects that have been mentioned here 
today. These were worthwhile projects to improve the quality of life 
for military personnel. They should not have been struck. They should 
not have been used as an example by the President to flex his power, 
which was given to him for worthy purposes and a good cause.
  It is up to us to remedy that mistake. He made the mistake. He tried 
to cover up on it by saying, oh, he would cure the mistake with a 
future budget request. That is not good enough.

                              {time}  1500

  The way he pays for the mistake is for us to disapprove these 
cancellations. We should do it today.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today the house votes to sustain or 
override the President's line-item veto of vital projects contained in 
the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriations bill. I want 
to share with my colleagues, and submit for the Congressional Record, 
an editorial appearing in one of the leading newspapers in my district, 
the Clayton News/Daily. I agree with Publisher Neely Young and Editor 
Tom Kerlin that giving the line-item veto to the President of the 
United States is an excellent method to control wasteful Federal 
spending and programs and was proper.
  I supported and voted for the bill that gave this power to the 
President. However, Mr. Speaker, I disagree when the President uses 
that power to deny funding to military construction projects that 
Congress has deemed vital to our national defense. I refer specifically 
to the President's decision to cut funds for a combat rescue operations 
facility located at Moody Air Force Base near Valdosta, GA.
  The President said he vetoed funds for this facility because the 
personnel comprising these rescue units had not yet relocated to Moody 
Air Force Base. More thorough research would have shown the President 
these units have been in operation at Moody AFB since April of this 
year and are using rented trailers while awaiting construction funds. 
Our military personnel deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I still support the President having line-item veto 
authority to eliminate wasteful Federal spending. Providing permanent 
operations facilities for our military personnel is not a waste of 
Federal tax dollars, and I will vote to override the President's veto 
of this bill.

                     [From the Clayton News-Daily]

                     Opinion--Bipartisan Opposition

       Since the idea was first seriously broached, we have said 
     the line-item veto was the perfect tool for controlling pork 
     barrel spending by the federal government. We still believe 
     that is true.
       However, a move Monday by President Clinton in striking out 
     the appropriations for a combat rescue operations facility 
     for Moody Air Force Base in south Georgia is a bad example of 
     the new power in the hands of the Executive Branch of our 
     federal government.
       In using his veto, Clinton said he did so because the money 
     for military construction is not needed since the two units 
     slated to use the facility have not yet been moved from 
     Patrick Air Force Base in Florida.
       That comes as news to the Sen. Max Cleland, who asked that 
     the spending bill be attached to the 1998 military 
     construction spending bill. It's also a revelation to the 
     base commander at Moody AFB. Cleland said the two units, the 
     41st and 71st rescue squadrons, have been at Moody since 
     April. Officials at the installation near Valdosta confirmed 
     that the move has been completed and the units are operating 
     out of rented trailers.
       The Pentagon announced plans in early 1996 to relocate the 
     two rescue squadrons to Moody. The relocation has brought 680 
     military personnel to the base, although many of them are 
     deployed with U.S. troops to various trouble spots like 
     Bosnia.
       ``I am very disappointed by this veto,'' said Cleland. 
     ``There is no rhyme or reason to it. Of all the projects that 
     were included in the bill, this one made the most sense. It 
     was my top priority for Georgia.''
       Sen. Paul Coverdell, R-Ga., called the veto ``an arbitrary, 
     uninformed exercise of executive power'' and vowed to work 
     with other Georgia lawmakers to overturn it.
       Rep. Sanford Bishop of Albany, whose district includes the 
     base, said the facility is essential ``to maintain high 
     readiness for this important rescue unit.''
       Cleland says he ``support(s) the line-item veto as a way to 
     cut out pork and reduce the deficit,'' but added ``this 
     facility is not pork. It is a critical project. If facilities 
     to accommodate a pararescue facility are not essential, I do 
     not know what is.''
       We agree with Cleland and Coverdell on this one. We wonder 
     if Clinton got bad information, misinterpreted the 
     information, or if he just didn't do his homework.
       Either way he has managed to attain bipartisan opposition 
     over the issue--something he can ill afford to do.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2631, a bill disapproving the cancellations of 38 military construction 
projects. I want to thank both distinguished Chairman Hefley and 
Chairman Packard for their hard work in producing two solid bills.
  I voted for the line-item veto and have no problem seeing the 
President use it. However, it must be used properly and wisely. These 
38 vetoed projects were not the famous $600 hammers and $1200 toilet 
seats the Pentagon has purchased in the past. That is what the line 
item was developed for.
  At Arnold Engineering Development Center [AEDC] in Tullahoma, TN, a 
new $9.9 million air dryer facility for the propulsion wind tunnel was 
eliminated by President Clinton. The wind tunnel performs advanced 
testing which requires dry air for simulating flight conditions. It is 
a critical element for ensuring accurate test results.
  This cancellation will affect advanced aerospace testing for the F-
22, the joint strike fighter, missiles and other state of the art 
flight designs. All of which require dry air for high-altitude testing. 
The air dryer is vital to the performance and safety for both aircraft 
and personnel. Any further delays in advanced wind tunnel testing for 
aerospace programs will certainly demand cost overruns.
  The existing facility was built in 1959 and does not have the 
capacity to provide continuous dry air flow needed to complete 
aerospace testing. A major failure of the current dryer would result in 
an estimated 26-weeks of lost test time. Furthermore, for every 20 
hours of wind tunnel testing, it must shut down for 12 hours. Delaying 
construction will lead to additional costs of $1.2 million per year.
  This project meets the President's so called criteria, although it is 
a bit vague. The new air dryer is in the President's 5-year defense 
budget. Architectural and engineering designs for the project were 
underway and construction could begin in fiscal year 1998.
  The White House, the Pentagon, the Air Force, and the Office of 
Management Budget [OMB], have all stated on the record that crucial 
project data was in fact outdated and led to misinformation. The end 
result was that legitimate and essential military construction projects 
were terminated based on bad data and an inconsistent, if not, 
arbitrary selection process without a clear set of criteria.
  AEDC relies some of the most sophisticated technologies in the world 
to test aerospace systems before flight. They are using antiquated 
1950's technology and infrastructure to test 1990's advanced aerospace 
programs worth billions of dollars.
  The bottom line is that this project is critical. It is critical in 
maintaining a portion of our military superiority. It is important, 
relevant and a validated military requirement for a sound 
infrastructure. I think that after you look at this project, you too 
will agree it is not what the line item veto was designed for.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this resolution of disapproval.

[[Page H10383]]

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2631, I want to thank 
Chairman Packard and Mr. Skeen for their work in getting this measure 
to the floor today. Many of the projects being restored will improve 
the quality of life for our servicemen and women. I am particularly 
grateful that it will restore funding for a project of vital importance 
to my constituents in Salk Lake City, the Olympic Village. the $12 
million in construction funds for Fort Douglas will allow the military 
reserves to relocate in time for the University of Utah to acquire the 
land and complete construction of the Olympic Village for the 2002 
Winter Games. Salt Lake City may be the host city for the 2002 Winter 
Olympic's--but these are America games.
  This bill is the first step toward overturning the President's veto 
and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, today this Congress has a unique 
opportunity. A chance to right a wrong, a chance to stand up for 
America, a chance to show you care to the men and women of our military 
and the communities which support them. A few short weeks ago, 
President Clinton vetoed essential military construction projects 
without properly consulting our military, without consideration of the 
impact of these vetoes on the lives and well being of our military, 
without consideration of the long term security interests of America. 
This has been going on for far too long and today we finally have an 
opportunity to say enough to this White House.
  I have the honor and privilege of representing some of the most 
patriotic communities in America. Two of these communities, Del Rio and 
El Paso, are home of two of our finest military installations, Laughlin 
Air Force Base and Fort Bliss. I can say without exaggeration that 
Laughlin is the finest little base in the Air Force and Fort Bliss' 
vastness is an unmatched national security asset. Therefore I, along 
with each and every citizen of Del Rio and El Paso, was shocked when 
the President chose to veto essential projects in these communities. 
Today's legislation provides us with an opportunity to stand up for our 
military, to improve our military quality of life, to show we value our 
military efforts.
  I want to personally tell the people of Del Rio and El Paso that this 
Congress will not abandon you, this Congress will not abandon our 
military. Today we will demonstrate our complete and total rejection of 
the President's dangerous and irresponsible cuts. Today we can stand 
united with the people of Del Rio and El Paso and reject the 
President's assault on our military and these communities. My 
colleagues, I urge you, join me in standing united with the good people 
of Del Rio and El Paso and turn back this President's attack on our 
military. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2631.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to the President's use of the line-item veto on the military 
construction appropriations bill.
  Now, I support the concept of the line-item veto. It's a tool 
Presidents should have as long as deficit spending continues. But my 
support doesn't mean that I must agree with its use in every instance.
  On these specific vetoes, the administration has admitted that 
projects were mistakenly vetoed. One such mistake was in my district.
  The President vetoed a qualified training range at Fort Knox. This 
range is an insightful, cost-effective efficient answer for arms 
training. It saves valuable training dollars and hours by creating one 
range that will meet training standards for 11 different weapons.
  This project saves money, time, and reduces risk to soldiers. In 
fact, it fulfills Secretary West's stated goal of ``pursuing innovative 
ideas to increase efficiency.''
  However, the President did not consider this goal when using his 
line-item veto authority. Instead, he considered factors that don't 
hold up under close scrutiny.
  According to the President, he vetoed those projects that were not 
included in his original budget request, those for which design work 
had not been completed, and those that, in his view, would provide no 
substantial contribution to improving the lives of soldiers.
  His first reason is far-fetched because this range was included in 
his 5 year military construction plan. Getting beyond this fact, his 
original argument still doesn't stand up. Congress added many more 
projects than the 38 vetoed. Why didn't the President veto all of them? 
After all, none of them were included in his budget request.
  His second reason is simply wrong. Construction is scheduled to begin 
next summer if the funding is approved. Furthermore, design work on 
this project is well underway.
  Finally, to suggest this would have made no substantial contribution 
to the lives of soldiers is misinformed. The Army agrees that this 
project is needed to correct shortfalls in mandatory training. To even 
suggest this would not have contributed to the lives of soldiers 
reveals the sharp philosophical differences between the President and 
myself on this issue--the importance of investing in those Americans 
upon which our national defense rests.
  Let's not put the lives of our soldiers at risk because of mistakes. 
The process allows us to override this veto. I urge my colleagues to do 
just that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. All time has expired.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard] that the House suspend the rules and pass the 
bill, H.R. 2631.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Without objection, the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2534, postponed 
earlier today, will be 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 352, 
nays 64, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 617]

                               YEAS--352

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)

[[Page H10384]]


     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--64

     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Carson
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Engel
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Johnson (WI)
     Kind (WI)
     LaHood
     Leach
     Luther
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Nussle
     Owens
     Petri
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ballenger
     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Foglietta
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Kennedy (MA)
     Klug
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Quinn
     Riley
     Schiff
     Taylor (NC)
     Walsh
     Yates

                              {time}  1525

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Messrs. ROTHMAN, EWING, DICKEY, MARKEY, STUPAK, 
WAXMAN, and RUSH Rush changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. BRADY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
suspended and the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________